Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Here’s more news about Walthamstow from our English correspondent SS. He includes this cover note:

Jihad in my locality is a bit like London busses: long waits, followed by two arriving at once… So here is yet another example of the local ‘Umma’ showing their concern for public morality. Only it is a step up from the picture I sent you last year; this time it is enactment of the threat.

First they came for the prostitutes…by SS

Last year, as reported in Gates of Vienna, posters were displayed around Walthamstow claiming ‘You are entering a Shariah Controlled Zone’ where drugs, prostitution, gambling, music, smoking, etc., were not allowed.

Now, apparently, a report in The Walthamstow Guardian claims that we have our own Jihadi street militia who will set about enforcing Sharia on the local population. The first target, according to the report, is kerb crawling and prostitution around the Bakers’ Arms and St James Street areas. Well, a journey starts with a single step, doesn’t it…

I do not care for kerb crawling or prostitution, but this proposed action by local jihadis fits in with the age-old human practice of clothing evil in good to accomplish dark deeds. As you may realise, the population of the local area is ‘celebrated’ as being ‘diverse’ by all and sundry mouthpieces for political correctness. So how come only one part of that ‘diversity’ gets to set the rules?

The beauty of the situation is that a large and growing part of that ‘diversity’ is composed of Eastern Europeans — who do not take kindly to being told what to do by Muslims, to put it mildly. But they do appear to like drinking, smoking and — many of them being single men alone in London — prostitutes.

Could it be that a solution to the ‘diversity’ problem is at hand, with one part of the ‘diversity’ neutralising another part? That way the ethnic English could get what they really want without getting their hands dirty.

13
comments:

Anonymous
said...

Nah, the Poles have no oil, and thus will be labeled as English Poles - really Western Poles - who will be prosecuted like the rest of the white Western population.

Western Poles will be treated like our own Hispanic George Zimmerman here in the States who was defined as a minority until the 'powers that be' found it more necessary for their own affairs for him to defined as a white man than a minority!

We should not be defensive. The muslim and immigrant communities are markedly misogynistic--they are the ones running the recent pedophile rings, among other things. They are the problem yet present themselves as the solution.

The immigrant communities are the problem. Even here in the U.S. you find the Hispanic and Asian groups running all sorts of prostitution rings, bringing in child sex slaves and making use of said prostitutes.

What is needed is a harsh crackdown on the immigrant communities. Especially the Muslim community that has zero qualms about using kaffir children as sex slaves among many other criminal activities.

Well, never mind. The poles are not wimps, like we are, and they will not listen to the sharia-police..I hope. They know how to fight, and they do fight. How very, very, very shameful it would be if the Poles would have to help liberate Europe again..And other than that, I don´t expect them to be very keen, not after the way they have been cheated and betrayed by the rest of Europe..Basically for as long as there have been Poles..

Quite interesting poles In Britain are mentioned. I always wondered what a reaction would be from an eastern European collective as to the doings of the shariah fanatics. Assumingly these people aren't used to multiculturalism.

From what I have heard is that they are unashamedly racist against non whites, and the blokes I have seen around town do look quite imtimidating. Usually tall big frames and with skinheads. But again as per my post the other day in general (barring the criminal element that entered the uk) they appear quite amicable and pleasant, particularly the females.

Assumingly also the poles havnt ghettoised themselves and appear to be spread out across the country. As have the waves of Italian immigrants, and those of Greek or south American descent in London in Particular.

Even the children or grandchildren of Turkish immigrants in London, have on the whole become part and parcel of uk society.

One could argue that the problem is related to pakistanis, but however in Germany it may be the Turks or Australia the Lebanese. Could it purely be a numbers game? As one homogenous group becomes to large, integration into ones host nation becomes increasingly difficult?

In the USA, is it not the mexicans who are not learning English, swamping cities with their prescence and in some cases teaching their children Solely in Spanish and in Mexican history? Granted they aren't blowing themselves up on planes or buses, but on the integration front there are clearly issues.

Again as per my last poSt if the culture and appearance of Immigrants to a host nation are very similar, assumingly assimilation and melting into the populace should be far more succesful.

"One part of the diversity neutralising another part" is really just another euphemism for civil war or at best serious civil strife. If the ethnic English really decide to do nothing but wait and calculate, such conflict could take years if not a decade to resolve itself completely, completely ruining the economy of the whole UK, even if Islam is defeated in the end. There are many immigrant communities in the UK who are more or less anti-Islamic (or anti-Western) and future turmoil will definitely not be a simple West vs. Islam confrontation. It will be a quagmire of various political, national and tribal campaigns and struggles. Ethnic English (and all Westerners for that matter) should consider organizing them into a broader Counterjihad coalition, not treating them like expendable pawns who will do the dirty work alone.

Going back to addressing the post. I believe the divide and conquer mentality would and is more effective in terms of foreign policy. For example if we take Syria for example having factions fight each other, not only weakens all involved it even diverts attention away from the west for the time being. If places like Syria or somalia become places for western jihadists to flock to then it can be seen as a good thing.

Instead of plotting to blow us up, let them go and blow themselves up there instead similarly let the funds intended for the spread of shariah here get diverted to fuelling conflict their. If we take the Libyan intervention, in that short time, millions of pounds spent to prop up a govt which declared shariah to be it's foundation. Now not that the removal of gaddafi and thus the emergence of rival militias that seem to frequently clash, may not be too much of a bad it seems the more stable the regime Saudi, turkey, morocco, the more effort they put in pushing their goals here,

In terms of England i don't think promoting factions based on ethnic lines Is either wise nor advisable. The end result most desirable is one unified people. Our govt has long emplored this method by pumping millions into the hands of moderate Muslims in order to strengthen them against the extremists, this policy has largely failed. And what kind of precedent does it set if one group Is pit against each other? Are we so far gone that we must descend into tribalism and violence?

I personally feel it must be the state that tackles the problems it has created. Actively dealing with things, and not simply denying the problems nor insulting or persecuting those in the country that are fed up with the way things are. Only the state has the finances, power and authority to do all of this in order to maintain order,the future of a united Britain and to avoid any potential conflict in the future,

It's the fact that that the state is largely either in denial or do not care. We also have to remember the identity of the state changes as parties are voted In and out of power. But it would appear that regardless of who gets in power the, continual paralysis in dealing with things continues,...

Vince. I agree with much of what you say and even, to a degree, with "it must be the state that tackles the problems it has created.". Problem is it will not do that - ever. The English have for centuries been tolerant and passive but, every now and then, they revolt and sometimes spectacularly.I think the emergence of the EDL is but a clue as to underlying feelings. No-one I know talks about it, or openly supports the EDL, but I definitely feel the vibes and can now, without rancour, sometimes advance my own feelings without negative response. Of course it is "not done" in England to discuss or debate politics or religion, except with seriously close confidantes. I rather think that it may well soon be acceptable and then the fireworks will start. Careful probing tells me that at least 80% have similar feelings. 80%? Hell that means the vast majority of indigenous Brits!

Beswick; my personal opinion is that it is desperation that forced people towards the edl. There very creation was not conceived in a board room somewhere, but from a pure explosion of fury on the street from the residents of Luton, which later evolved into the edl.

I agree with 60-70% of what the edl say. Unfortunately my experiences on their message boards in the early days put me off them. But then again in the beginning, the kind of people who probably flocked to them may have been made up of nationalists,racists etc. I heard that they weeded out some groups from within the edl.

The two guys I have major respect for are tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll. When you hear them speak you can tell they are genuine. The last speech I watched on YouTube were tommy brought Abdul up on stage and told people to read the Quran not burn it, really got me to take notice and have another think about the edl. It also gave me major admiration for tommy Robinson.

The fact is however regardless of whether you support the edl or not, the fact is you dare not ever ever speak out publicly stating that you agree with some of their views. Even conservative mps including a black one, have been pubicly crucified (politically) for merely acknowledging they have a point.

We have to realise alot of the public, through the wall of silence we have been forced into over the years has reduced people to ignore free thought and immediately persecute those who's view deviated from the one set out from above. Sound familiar,communism, nazism? I was severly criticised by my peers during the last election when I publicly mentioned I was voting ukip. The intention to vote liberal or labour is admired yet voting ukip or even to some extent conservative, is viewed with disgust.

I think many people are also put off by the fact the edl is a street movement. The repercussions and reluctance to join or even support the edl can thus be seen. The question which will be interesting to see, will be in the face of the complete rejection of the bnp by the electorate, underlying sympathies for the edl, and frustration amongst the populace, how well will the British freedom party do?

Voting them may give people a chance to voice their concern. I will still vote ukip as I believe the euro question and sway towards ukip may indeed force a referendum depending on who wins the next election. If labour wins the discontent among conservative voters may be enough to either push more people toward ukip or force the conservatives to demand a referendum on Europe, but the fact that when opposition they gave a guarantee and then reneged on it, is not promising.

I think leaving the eu will ease the problems we have In the uk, and once this is achieved and once power is restored to national govt, we may actually have some ability to tackle the problems we face. But unfortunately the ability to tackle and the willingness to tackle are two different things. I feel it is when those parameters are met, that one should look towards perhaps voting British freedom to put your discontent to the politicians.

But end of the day to even get to that stage or if at all possible is another thing. By that time the country could have already descended into low level skirmishes, and then it may be a case of turning to a street based movement or vigilantism in order to protect oneself. Again which would be the begging stages of the breakup of a unified nation and either then to warring territories or even far worse general anarchy and widespread lawlessness

While most Poles (even left-wing ones) have views about the Religion of Peace that would give a powerful "shock treatment" to any Guardian or BBC journo, I fear that those in London may be too busy building, or plumbing, or driving vans/lorries to mount any "liberation" of Walthamstow... while those that do have time on their hands may also feel bound to address other "necessities", such as Russian football fans descending on Warsaw.

In addition - the adherents of the Religion of Peace have already recognised the Poles, in particular Polish women... according to some Polish friends in London, 90% of Polish girls they know go out with Muslims. With such numbers, how many patriotic, Catholic and "fearless" Poles will there be in the next generation to take up the fight when things really heat up??

Two thoughts are now battling inside me, after reading this, as a Czech, I now see how could you betray us during WWII. The other is about differences, French are much worse, than British, like Poles are not behaving as good as Czechs (ethnic Czechs) and differences between us and muslims gets much greater. The aftermath of this thoughts is simple, greatly different group should (in a way)unify the rest, else this different group (Islam) will be (in a way)used by the fighting parts of this rest.

Not sure what you mean, unless you're referring to Polish football fans? :)

I get the point about unity. Differences between Poles, Czechs, Russians, Brits, French etc serve only one group nicely - Muslims. So yes, I agree it's better to put these differences to one side & concentrate on the bigger issue that affects us all.

As for Czechs, Poles don't really think much about them - apart from maybe laughing every time they hear the Czech language. For example "broken" (English) = porouchany (Czech). While the word pronounced the same in Polish - "Poruchany" = "f***ed" (literally). And a thousand other examples...

PS sorry to see your team - the last one remaining from Eastern Europe - get beaten yesterday.